'Builds' layout.

Since we've got people who are interested in doing some writeups, I figured i'd post up this example of what I have in mind for 'Specific Build' writeups. This one in particular is a single character build, for a melee Mesmer / Warrior. I haven't come up with a clever name for it just yet, heh.

---------------------------------------------------------

{Name of Build}
Primary profession: Mesmer
Secondary profession: Warrior

· Perhaps have a picture of the class, in this case a Mesmer wielding a Sword and Shield one one side, and then the relevant build information (Attributes / Skills - individually linked to the database for quick reference) here.

In this case, that information is as follows:

Fast Casting: 8
Illusion Magic: 11
Tactics: 11

Illusionary Weaponry
Conjure Phantasm
Phantom Pain
Flurry
Bonetti's Defense
Defensive Stance
Disciplined Stance
Healing Signet

And then the writeup:

So you want to play a melee character, but find yourself thinking "I'm not interested in being a Warrior primary, I want something more like a rogue" - which might then leave you thinking you're out of luck, right? Wrong! For those looking to play a slightly different take on a close range combatant, the Mesmer/Warrior might be right up your alley.

Normally, the Mesmer would not make an ideal candidate for the front lines, due to her relatively low armor rating which would seem to be a complication .. but we're not interested in taking hits, so instead we'll focus on bringing along skills that will help us evade damage. To that end, we have three Tactics stances: Defensive, Disciplined, and Bonetti's Defense. Mostly, these skills serve the same purpose: a 75% chance to block incoming attacks. 'If they're the same, then why bring 3?' you might ask. To which I might answer that each of these skills lasts around 10 seconds, but ranges from 45 to 60 seconds to recharge. In my own experience with this build, i've found that having three stances is enough to keep me through most battles, and helps to have a stance available when I need one while working through the cool down times. Each of these stances varies a little, something we'll discuss shortly.

So now that we know how we intend on staying alive .. how are we going to do any damage? After all, it doesn't help nearly as much as you might think when your only qualification in battle is being 'less likely to die' - you need to give as well as receive! To these ends, our primary source of damage comes from Illusionary Weaponry. The description of this skill might be confusing to some people .. you deal no damage in melee, but target takes damage? What's that all about? The easiest answer is that the damage you deal in melee is not determined by the strength of your weapon, or in your skill with using it - when using Illusionary Weaponry, the only thing that matters for damage is how many points you have in Illusion Magic. You can use a 3-4 damage short sword, and still be putting out 30+ damage a swing. So find yourself a sword you like, and use it solely for looks. The best part of all this is that we can ignore our Swordmanship line completely, and put those Attribute points to better use elsewheres.

'Hang on a second,' you might think. 'If weapons are irrelevant, why are we using swords? Can't I smack something with a hammer instead?' Well, you certainly could if you wanted to, but there's a reason for using swords. Out of all the current melee weapons, swords have the best base attack speed. Since it doesn't matter how hard our weapon hits for, only that we hit, we want to make our attacks as fast as possible. This is also why the skill Flurry was included on the build, to increase our rate of attack, since the 'deals less damage' penalty does not apply to Illusionary Weaponry. While the skill Frenzy would last longer, it also puts us considerably further into harms way by making any hit that gets through a critical one. Between the two, Flurry is better suited here, but that is a matter of personal opinion / play style.

Rounding out the skills list, we have two tried-and-true Mesmer standby skills, Conjure Phantasm and Phantom Pain. Having these skills along provides a greater degree of flexibility to the build, you can provide ranged damage if needed, or have an alternate means of attack if your IW is put out of commision. Having Fast Casting on this build helps a good deal with these skills - you can stack both onto a target before charging in to melee range. Phantom Pain is an excellent "cast first, then attack" skill - not for its damage (low health degen) but for its side effects of causing a Deep Wound (targets maximum health is decreased by 20%) - I can't begin to count the number of times that this move has finished off an enemy, especially if you come across a self healing boss.

Lastly, we have the Healing Signet. This is so .. we don't die. This is the most efficient self-heal skill to be used with this kind of build, since we already have points invested in Tactics. To use the Mesmer's self-heal would require points invested in Inspiration, which ends up leaving us spread a little too thin.

So now that we know a little bit more about what we have, and why, let's take a look at a typical example of how this build would handle in combat. After using Phantom Pain and Conjure Phantasm, we want to get into melee range with Illusionary Weaponry. The first of the stances you'll want to use (if you are the target) would be Defensive Stance - since the catch here is that it ends if you use a skill. Might be problematic for Warriors, but we're doing our damage without having to use new skills thanks to IW. If you find yourself getting hit hard, you might want to use Disciplined Stance, for its additional bonus to armor levels - as its drawback (can't gain adrenaline) doesn't affect us at all. And lastly, if you find yourself wanting for energy in the middle of a fight, use Bonetti's Defense - which grants us energy for each attack we parry.

As with every build that can be put together, this one too, has its weaknesses. Since we rely almost entirely on Illusionary Weaponry as our source of damage, then we run into problems against enemies that have the potential to remove enchantments. On its own, IW lasts for 30 seconds, with a recharge time of 40 - meaning you only need to wait 10 seconds in between each use, which isn't too bad. But if someone shatters your enchantment right after you use it, the 40 seconds of recast might feel like a very long time.

For those interested in this approach, but want to try a more 'advanced' version - you can try subbing out two of your defensive stances (keep Bonetti's) and replace them with Distortion and Spirit of Failure. The idea being (hopefully) SoF and Bonetti's can provide enough mana to keep Distortion fueled and running. However! This is a very mana-hungry build, and if things go wrong in the middle of a battle, it can be hard to recover from. Save this approach unless you really want a challenge.

And there you have a brief look at but one possibility for the melee Mesmer. There are plenty of other combinations - find the skills and the approach that you feel most comfortable with. One thing is for certain however - you'll be the envy of all those back row casting Mesmers that wish they led a more exciting life style


----------------------------------------------------------

And that's that. Any thoughts, on either the layout style or the article itself?

I liked it quite a bit, especially the way you explained the use of some of the more important skills and reasoning behind the attribute distribution.

The only piece of information which I believe might be useful to add is how exactly you faired with it; it is more relevant for PvP builds but serves its purpose for PvE as well. You mentioned the strengths and weaknesses, but it would be interesting to know your experiences with it.

As usual, interesting style

Yeah, i'd like to expand on strengths and weaknesses a little more. Since it looks like we've got 2 and a half hours of Tombs tommorow night, I should have time enough to get a good impression of how it fares realistically in battle.
The only thing i'm a bit wary of is making it too long .. I know we've both seen it in the past, when we do huge writeups we typically get at least one "I didn't read all of that, but.." or "That was long." posts.
I'll probably end up slipping in a reference joke here or there when I go back to add more .. for all people tell me they're weird, they complain even more when I don't include them .. go figure.

But if we like this as a set up, then i'll go ahead and keep that format and start working on some more builds. I have another one in mind that might be fun, based off elemental Nature Rituals (Greater Conflagration, Blizzard) and Dryder's Defense.. I only had a chance to play around with it a little in Tombs, but it was great having 3 Warriors pounding on me doing only 6, 7 damage a hit.

My initial thought, what is it with folks and IW these days? Grr, people need to carry around more anti-enchanting, I think.

As for the build, you're quite right that anti-enchantment will hose you. But not that badly because you've got the Conjure/Phantom combo which you can use from range before you close or to keep fighting if you get stripped. I'd probably replace Conjure or one of the stances (you can only use one at a time, so having two is just to cover the recharge gaps) with Etherial Burden, both because of the energy and because as a melee character it's nice to have a snare.

As for the format, seems pretty good to me. There should probably be a space near the skill list about gear, whether you recommend a focus or a shield or whether you need a specific damage type on your weapon to run this build or specific armor. But, while it works well as an example, would it be possible to boil it down to a guideline of sorts? Something like :

Yeah, that looks like a pretty fair summarization guideline to me. I just wanted to have something on hand as well to give an impression of what they'd be like, so it wouldn't just be a cut and dry 'use these skills' kind of thing for people that want to start writing Builds for us.

And it's true enough that people need to carry more Anti-Enchantments, but I have a strong suspicion you're going to be seeing these skills even less now that Healing Hands has been made Elite.

Ethereal Burden could also work on this one as well, but I think that might shift the build to a little more 'hit and run' kind of set up. Get in, get your damage, slow them and back off. The way I have it now, with those three stances, and the order that I use them, I can stay in combat as long as I need to in almost all situations. By starting with Defensive (45 seconds recharge) and then following up with the next two, i've got 30 seconds of relative untouchable-ness, followed by a brief 15 second break before I can start the cycle again - which is usually when I back off and focus on the DoTs instead.

I suppose I should note that that is a PvE affected set up, as often you'll be facing more things at once in that situation (the AI loves casters that rush forward) so I need to be able to hold my ground while dealing with multiple nasty things .. those fights tend to last longer. Perhaps EB would work out better in PvP, i'll try and give it a run tonight.

Understood about your intents, Spooky, what I posted wasnt very far off from the template I use for my own build discussions, I just thought that a guide from a structural rather than an example perspective was called for. Yours is a great example, but I want to have something that peple can point to as a checklist sort of thing.

See, that's my problem, I'm used to thinking in PvP so I view everything from that lens. I don't think of "building" for PvE very much. Anyhow, yes, EB is far less useful in PvE, although it does work as an en tap of sorts, and you can use it just for that. Lots of stances, lots of hexes, and IW will chew up your energy quickly if you're ont careful. You need a way to grab some extra en or conserve things if you want this build to really succeed, I think. However, I suggested it mainly because you're lacking a speed buff. In PvP what happens when someone rushes in and starts laying down 30+ damage hits on me is that I'm goign to run away. A speed boost lets you catch up and deliver more IW hits but a snare serves the same purpose of keeping you in melee range. A war character, a character that's going to be dealing in melee range, shouldn't be without one or the other in PvP. And I like EB because it multi-dimensional. It snares *and* it gives you en so you can use it for both or either and get much more mileage out of that skill slot than with a skill that just dd one. Same reason I like Phantom over Conjure. Phantom works if it stay on and if it gets stripped off, they're hurt either way (and if they let it stay, well, sucks to be them) while Conjure only works will the duration lasts.

Still, I'd say hit and run tactics are ideal for a build like this. You're a primary mes, stances can get ended, someone can target you with spells that get by them, whatever, you just don't have the defenses to try and stay in melee forever. You should be getting in, popping Flurry, getting in some big hits, then falling back to range and debuffing or rebuffing with IW before closing again. You can tank if you have to but that shouldn't be your first impulse with a character like this. In PvE it's a bit different, yes, but PvE is generally much more forgiving of your tactical errors.

Hmm.. this does make me think. Do we want to divide up the Builds section?
First the basic "PvP Builds" "PvE Builds" .. but possibly break them down into 'Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced' designations?

Being able to say what something is intended to be used for would eliminate having to write in a lot of alternate routes / second guessing of skills .. which I think, if you get too much of .. it's good for a conversation, not good for an article, it gets confusing and the point is lost.

I guess the real question is if designating something by level is a good idea or not. I mean that more in an 'application' sense, rather than one of effectiveness. I can and do use a very straight forward Pyromancer set up most of the time .. no ninja tricks to it, but it's still effective. Whereas something more advanced might be powerful but situational in use, or require one to be very aware of the battlefield, timing, etc.
The concern that I have is people might look down on something termed "Beginner", or immediately jump in with an "Advanced" Build that they simply aren't ready to use because they think that would be 'best' .. and then get upset because of it.

Well, it's something to discuss at any rate.

I think separating builds by difficulty level is a great idea. When we first open the site, PvP/PvE -> Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced seems to be appropriate (or some similar variation).

Although, at a later point as we have more builds under our belt, it might be wise to move them into a more specific set of categories, i.e., sub-divided by primary professions followed by beginner, intermediate, advanced categories.

Like you said, some might be inclined to believe advanced builds are better, we could have a disclaimer informing otherwise.

Welp, that sounds like a plan to me. Even just the simple split for PvE / PvP will let us have the person(s) most capable write for that area, without needing to stretch the article into something it isn't for the sake of encompassing the entirety of an audience that might be reading it.

I'll have to disagree here. Dividing things up by level is...well, pointless. What is Basic and what's Advanced? What's a "ninja trick" to Spooky is just common sense to me. What's common sense to me might be mind blowingly complex to someone else. Strategy level is something deeply personal and far too complex in a game with as many working parts as GW. Same with PvE/PvP it's a false dichotomy. A build might be designed for PvP but it can work in PvE. There's no need to separate them. That way someone looking is likely to miss something in the PvP or PvE section, depending on what they're interested in. Just as someone who thinks they're awesome will gloss over the Novice section when there might be something there for them.

To me, it's a purpose much better served by the write-up. Maybe there should be a brief description of things even before you get into skills and attributes. "This is a nuking Ele/war I designed primarily for PvE. Well, here it is :" Soemthing like that. But, whether strategy is intermediate or advanced for someone can be determined when they actually look at the strategy. As will whether it's a build that's good for one situation or another (After all, why just PvP and PvE. What about GvG builds? Tombs builds? Arena builds? Undead map builds? EA builds? Once you start carving things up by map types, where do you stop? Because there are very different needs in the various maps for just PvP or PvE.).

What I would do is categorize by role. By niche. Have categories for, say "Healer". Or "Nuker". Or "Disruption". Umbrella terms that cover a lot, in other words, but give you a general idea of what you're looking at. Then, have another way of sorting based on profession and based on author (So, if you like what someone's doing you can look for other examples of their thinking) and that's all you need. Let people find their own level, let them make their own discoveries, let them try what they want, don't try to decide for them before the fact. But, then, I'm the sort of person who thinks you learn to swim best by jumping in the water.

I would have to disagree with you Saus, I do believe there is a clear distinction between beginner and advanced builds (intermediate is a bit blurred). As an example, an Elementalist utilizing only offensive skills such as meteor, firestorm, phoenix etc is much easier to use than a Warrior with axe rake, axe twist, dismember, swift chop, eviscerate and other skills dependant on factors x,y,z to be effective.

Now, you bring up a good idea; separating by purpose rather than difficulty. We can't do both and I'm not sure which would be best.

Why do people read build descriptions? Is it to copy the build wholesale and recreate it in game? If that were the case, then dividing up builds by percieved difficulty would be reasonable.

But realistically that isn't what happens. The vast majority of players read build descriptions for *ideas*. When a typical user reads something like Spooky's build writeup, they're looking for skill ideas for their own character, or gameplay concerns they might not have been aware of, or new ways to approach a situation that they hadn't thought to try. Or, if they don't play that type of character, they're looking to understand the *principle* of the build - what makes it tick, what the key skills are, or generally just a crash course in that particular style of play.

What ultimately matters? The track record of the build, the reputation of the writer, and the detail of explination.

If I may close on an entirely unrelated note, what's the favorite class combination of your typical awful forum dweller? The Mesmer/Necromancer. It feels like there are more builds for that particular class posted than for every other combination *combined*. Are these easy to play? No. Are these even any good? Debatable. But for as much grief as I give people for these posts, they do demonstrate quite clearly that the community is quite ready to dive into complex concepts.

If you're going to have a build database, sort by class combination and/or function.


Carry around all the anti-enchantment you want, it isn't going to do you much good with those cooldowns. You need 4-5 strips in your party just to keep a called target naked - do you really think there's enough enchantment removal available to throw onto auxliliary targets? You can thank the extreme nerf of all enchantment removal for the surge in enchantment based builds - when the answers are worse than the threats, why not play threats?

Peace,
-CxE

there is a distinction in strategy levels. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that it's not cut and dried where the lines are and that it's pointless to try and make them up arbitrarily. Far better to simply lay things out and let people make their own choices. For example, that Warrior strat is Basic. For someone who plays a war. Understanding chainging skills and timing attacks, and building up adren, positioning, closing to melee is all second nature to anyone who's going to consider themselves a war. But to someone who's playing a Monk? Those are foreign concepts and the lessons you learn from playing a Monk (read : healer but even a smiter is arguably different) are not the ones you learn playing A War and aren't really applicable. Is that Monk player still at the Basic level? Or are they just at a different level of understanding a particular nuance of something? It's too pat and easy to label things Basic and Expert in something as complx as GW. The mechanics are basic, the idea of skills and energy and all that leads into gameplay. But beyond that, one man's killer strat is the next's outdated dead-end. What happens if we label something elite now and then a few weeks later a change in the metagame or to skills relagates it to the dustbin? That's a lot of tending and checking of things to keep them up-to-date...

Right. We're not building a database of builds to *copy*. Of builds that players *must* use. We're building a database of proven or potential builds to help people make up their own. It's a key difference. If all that mattered was the build, then just do the Coldfront "post the skills and say how well you did", that's all you need. But we're trying to educate people a bit. To get them thinking about their own ideas, about how they could tweak the build and make it their own, adapt it to their needs and their team, rather than just steal it.

yes, I agree. Anti-enchantment is awful. Perhaps I should have said something along the lines of "Grr, anti-enchantment should be a lot better so that people *can* carry around the effective coutners to such annoying strats". A good enchantment counter and that build is nearly toast (not quite as much toast as the aG IW build, though, oy, that one's got holes you could drive a truck through) but there isn't a good enchantment counter and I wish there was one. That's what I was trying to get at...

This is indeed what i'm hoping for, which is why I wanted to establish the format for it that I did. There's no doubt in my mind that a solid database for Builds would be a valuable commodity - something most fansites are lacking - when you consider that a (projected based on past answers in forums, etc) large percentage of the Guild Wars population counts Diablo 2 in their library of previous titles. Builds, and guides for them, were a big part of D2. I think there's definitely going to be people who want ideas, but then look at all of the skills available for each character class, and just feel overwhelmed, the same as there will be people who are just in the mood to try something different.

Wait.. you mean there are other class combinations in the game? I would have never guessed by looking at the Strategy forum at TGH.

Well, what makes a strategy 'basic', versus what makes it 'good', are completely different things. There are plenty of horrendously complex, terrible strategies floating around to back me on this.

Keeping track of what builds are up to date? I don't think that's our job. Just slap a date on everything and let the writers explain what's good now and why.

MtG sites have a long history of doing such things with decklists so there's plenty of prior art to draw inspiration from.


Perhaps that should be said on the alpha boards. Repeatedly.

Peace,
-CxE

What's said - what's being discussed, what's being proposed, what changes are coming, who's thick skulls I'm trying to drive home points into - on the alpha boards is, as you should be most clearly aware by now, covered by the NDA and not to be talked about in public.

However, you want to go ahead and get a discussion jumpstarted on enchantment removal and it's current place in the metagame, go right ahead. I could always use a few more bolts in the quiver.

Abundantly clear, though I was in no way asking what was said on the Alpha boards. I'm just saying that the fact that Enchantment removal is wholly inadequate needs to be said where someone with some power to fix it will see it, and not on a board with nine members.

While I'm on the subject of things that the devs need to hear, making Healing Hands elite is unconditionally insane, Healing Seed with the right equipment grants invulnerability in an area of effect that *never wears off*, Fragility is still begging to be broken and you testers need to get on that, Ether Prodigy is still a complete joke, and their 'fix' of Ether Lord didn't make the skill any better.


Where, on TGH? I'll give it mention in an article I'm putting up right before the next BWE. Hopefully someone else will pick up the discussion, as I can't make a complete post just about why enchantment removal is too weak. Unless I need to write another post on threat/answer theory.

Peace,
-CxE

Did I say something was said on the alpha boards? That I'm waging a multi-thread battle in an effort to convince some bloody headed people that they're desperately wrong about the current state of things, the devs the least of which? That we've been wrestling over this for weeks? No, I don't think I said any of that. In fact, I think I said I can't say stuff like that.

No comment. See above.

Far be it from me to tell someone what to post. Do it. Not really up to me what you say or don't. Do it. Or where. Do it. But, it's interesting how many times conversations from elsewhere get referrenced or spark conversations on the alpha boards. Do it. And just how many ideas are first kicked around in public before becoming "common wisdom" amongsts testers. Do it. The devs watch the boards and so do the alphas, so good discusion there can easily influence things. Do it. Although, of course, it would be totaly wrong of us alphas, especially those of us who are influential in the forum community to abuse those connections and use the boards or our articles to push our own agendas and viewpoints by mercilessly diverting discussions to the appropriate spaces. Do it. *cough*Photics*cough* Do it. And I for one, try not to put myself in a position where I can be called out about such devious and underhanded practices.

Speaking of Photics, he has agreed to do a few articles for us as a guest writer. Not everyone likes him because of his controversial nature, but his articles are always worthy of discussion.

I thought we didn't like Photics because he carries himself like a member of GoD, and plays even worse.

Though I can see him writing an article on running away. RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOer can run for his life like no other after being viciously owned.

Peace,
-CxE

Ah, there's that famous Ensign tact and civility. Renowned throughout the GW community. Honestly, with posts like that, it's a wonder why he's not in the alpha, isn't it?

Anyhow, no, I, personally, dislike Photics because he's an overbearing, insufferably arrogant prick (Gee, why does that sound familiar?) who'll argue something for days (Such an odd sensation It's almost like the words "Chuck" are floating to my lips.) without the capacity to admit that he might be wrong. However, he's not a bad writer, and certainly opinionated, so I don't see any harm in having a few articles by him on hand. More content is more content and if we want to become known as a place for "columnists" we can't shy away from presenting veiwpoints we might not like or accepting material from people we certainly don't. We're not backing or detracting from anyone here, we're just presenting ideas and opinions for discussion and ellucidation.

My experience with Photics is limited to two encounters with him in the Tombs. On both occasions he took the oppertunity to talk all kinds of shit and denigrate my team while being beaten into a pulp. Then he ran like he was made to do so.

Granted that isn't a ton of experience but it has painted him in a light about as favorable as what I posted. And excuse me if I'm not going to hide in nicities to spare his feelings.

Peace,
-CxE



(EDIT - yes, I can take a hit.)

Chuck, you hiding behind nicities would be like peace breaking out in the Middle East. Wonderful, unexpected, and destined to make us all highly suspicious and doubtful of it lasting. So, don't go doing that. But, don't expect to throw punches without getting your own nose bloodied, eh?

But, I supose the point is that it's not you making the decision, so it doesn't really matter if you like it or dislike it. You don't have to be nice about it, and you certainly don't have to hide your feelings on the matter, but you do have to be civil. There is a difference between speaking your mind and saying whatever you want, after all. That's all I'm saying, grin, bear it, and don't be a collalsal prick about it. Just be your normaly barely tolerabel prick and everything should be fine.

Heh, Ensign and Photics in the same place at the same time, the phrase maison en flambe comes to mind.

Was I there for one of those fights? I seem to recall the same sort of thing happening during one of the open events. Although, I seem to recall the same sort of thing happening whenver I've fought Photics...

My problems with Photics at this point are personal, not professional. As long as our relationship on this site remains purely professional, I don't forsee any problems.

You're right that it isn't my decision to make, but at the same time I'd be doing a disservice to everyone if I didn't voice said concerns.

I don't think you were with me either of the times I've fought Photics. As you said, it wouldn't make a difference - trash talking from Photics and bickering in the party over who gets to chase him down and take his head after his party is eliminated.

Peace,
-CxE